73 comments:

Capitol Police have issued scores of citations against the protesters over the last 18 months, but Dane County District Attorney Isamel Ozanne, a Democrat, has dismissed most of them.

Am I the only one who reads this and thinks of the old Dixiecrat South, where someone down at the courthouse would give Rufus & Eugene a pass because "They really didn't mean to hurt those colored boys. It was just all fun & games that got out of hand. Be awful to ruin two young lives over somethin' like that."

Don't Democrats understand that when they poison the basic functions of government like this, they poison their brand in a way corrupt Republicans don't?

The Incessant "whose house? OUR house" chants during the illegal occupation still make my skin crawl. The whole episode proved that a) the illegal occupiers had no civility and no sense of irony and b) law enforcement was complicit in the whole process.

Meanwhile in MN, land of 10,000 ballots-per-trunk, the MN Supreme Court went against Soros-backed Secy of State Ritchie!!!

"Legislators had called the Photo ID amendment: “Photo Identification Required for Voting.” Ritchie, following a state law that says the Secretary of State writes ballot titles, substituted this language: “Changes to In-person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots.”

For marriage, legislators called the amendment: “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.” Ritchie’s title reads: “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.”

You understand that because your politics are 'wrong," garage doesn't consider you a "people" .... right?

This is frighteningly ignorant. I don't want new rules made up to keep Meadehouse from exercising their 1st Amendment rights either. You do realize a Democrat tyrant like a Rahm Emmanuel could get elected governor and easily make up rules to keep the Tea Party from protesting? Why is that so hard to understand? But they Tea Party will gladly give up their own rights without even a whimper, as long as lefty protesters are kept out. D-U-M-B.

What exactly is the point of "cracking down" on the protesters if the District Attorney isn't interested in charging them with anything? Seems like the spectacle of getting arrested in the Capitol ("Help, help, I'm being repressed!") without the credible threat of actual legal consequences would just encourage them.

Walker's administration hired Erwin in July to take over the Capitol Police from outgoing Chief Charles Tubbs. Erwin, a former Marine, said he reached an agreement with Ozanne and Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen last week calling for Van Hollen to handle civil citations against the protesters and Ozanne to handle any criminal complaints.

Erwin was hired by the Republican Walker to institute the Republican aims, with two Republican dudes assisting to make sure that any liberal grievances are met with force, pepper spray, and a general "fuck you" attitude.

So the message is simple: Stay away from the Capitol, you fucking liberals! STAY THE FUCK AWAY!!!

You do realize a Democrat tyrant like a Rahm Emmanuel could get elected governor and easily make up rules to keep the Tea Party from protesting?

See, there are two false assumptions there.

Assumption one is that the Tea Party is interested in deliberately disrupting Democratic legislatures to prevent them from getting anything done.

Assumption two is that they would, today, be allowed to do that without being arrested.

Neither assumption is supported by the available evidence.

Plus, of course, there's the little fact that there's no constitutional right to prevent duly elected legislatures from carrying out their legislative duties. There is, contrary to your beliefs, no constitutional right to a temper tantrum -- and certainly not one that deprives voters of their right to representation. :)

It seems like libertarians rarely, if ever, go to the mat for people they disagree with. You're dutifully displaying that for us here. "The government is to be trusted first!" isn't what I thought libertarianism was all about.

This is frighteningly ignorant. I don't want new rules made up to keep Meadehouse from exercising their 1st Amendment rights either. You do realize a Democrat tyrant like a Rahm Emmanuel could get elected governor and easily make up rules to keep the Tea Party from protesting? Why is that so hard to understand? But they Tea Party will gladly give up their own rights without even a whimper, as long as lefty protesters are kept out. D-U-M-B.

And your comment is 'B-U-L-L-S-H-I-A-T-E'.

1) Since when to governors 'make up rules'?and2) As you SHOULD know the 1st Amendment is not absolute i.e. shouting out 'FIRE!' in a crowded room (and just to stop you before you debate 'is' again) naturally this refers to a room NOT on fire.

Your constantly taking the most extreme and poorly thought-out views is boring and makes you sound like an ill-informed clown.

Let me continue:garage mahal said...What exactly is the point of "cracking down" on the protesters if the District Attorney isn't interested in charging them with anything?

Charge them with what? Taking a picture? Singing? Perhaps they aren't breaking any laws?

"The government is to be trusted first!" isn't what I thought libertarianism was all about

The "protests" are about helping government workers to take money from private sector -- upon pain of imprisonment -- and bestow it upon themselves.

The fact that we don't trust the government is, of course, one reason why we look on your little crew of thugs and extortionists with disgust. You ARE the government -- the worst, least-accountable, unelected parts of the government.

And you live by leeching off the valuable and productive parts of society.

You still haven't been able to point to any rights that are being violated, incidentally. :)

The state constitution clearly states that it is unlawful to block access to the Capitol and to try to prevent protests. Not sure why I'[m pointing this out as I'm sure you don't care about the Constitution.

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.”

Like I said, libertarians are the biggest joke of any political party. You moan and wail about big government, and then cheerlead big government smashing unions and limiting the rights of citizens. Even with the threat of force for non compliance.

So just be a little more honest and say you love big government for all sorts of things.

The state constitution clearly states that it is unlawful to block access to the Capitol and to try to prevent protests.

Access to the capitol isn't being blocked, except by the occasional large crowds of "I'm more important than you" protesters clogging up the place 24/7. :)

As for your claim that the right to "protests" is protected, let's see a quote from the text that mentions "protests".

Not sure why I'm pointing this out as I'm sure you don't care about the Constitution.

Presumably because at a subconscious level you realize that the second half of your sentence was a silly thing to say.

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged."

And it hasn't been. What petition of theirs has gone unheard? None. What group is being forbidden from assembling? None.

It defies both logic and common sense -- not to mention the law -- to think that the right to assemble and petition the government includes some sort of right to perform musical numbers in the capitol building any time you feel like it.

See, here's why you don't get libertarians. "Rights", to you, mean you get to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and everyone else can go fuck himself.

Libertarians recognize that the only justification for having "public" space in the first place is that it be shared. Having content-neutral rules for sharing public spaces is necessary to protect the rights of everyone. Otherwise assholes like you get to move in, shit all over everything, and deprive everyone else of access.

The state constitution clearly states that it is unlawful to block access to the Capitol and to try to prevent protests. Not sure why I'[m pointing this out as I'm sure you don't care about the Constitution."

Of course it does not clearly say that all. You may think it means that, but it does not say that. Fortunately you post what is clearly says next:

"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.”"

"You do realize a Democrat tyrant like a Rahm Emmanuel could get elected governor and easily make up rules to keep the Tea Party from protesting?"

-- In local areas of Virginia, we've had that, with Tea Party protestors required to file thousands of dollars in fees for the right to protest, while Occupy protestors were allowed to squat without paying a dime. In fact, Tea Party protestors across the nation report this odd disparity, including additional scrutiny by the IRS. The odd thing is that the IRS and, I believe it was Richmond or Arlington, governments are perfectly proper in applying scrutiny and requiring them to pay their fees. Yet, somehow, Occupy was never given that scrutiny or asked to pay the fee.

So, oddly enough, the left has -already- been enforcing the double standard we're supposed to be afraid that a tyrannical left might enforce were the right to ask for the tyrannical left (hey, tyrant was your word, not mine) to, I dunno, tyranize people by forcing them to obey the laws that the right is already being forced by, I guess, jack booted tyrants, to follow.

Larry J said..."I understand it's a political environment," Erwin said of the Capitol. "(But) there's a line. We're better than that."

Recent evidence suggests otherwise.

Really? Evidence more recent than the June recall election? Because, the evidence from that election of what democracy actually does look like in the state of Wisconsin seems to me hit a fairly high mark.

The state constitution clearly states that it is unlawful to block access to the Capitol and to try to prevent protests. Not sure why I'[m pointing this out as I'm sure you don't care about the Constitution.

The question is, if one group takes over the building and bullies other groups (such as, you know, shouting them down when they to speak and physically hits them when they are there), isn't that group abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble, consult for the common good and to petition the government?

"The question is, if one group takes over the building and bullies other groups (such as, you know, shouting them down when they [try] to speak and physically hits them when they are there), isn't that group abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble, consult for the common good and to petition the government?"

Matthew Sablan asks the exact right question. Can garage mahal or any other supporter of the "Uprising" Capitol occupation protest answer that question? John Nichols? Jesse Jackson?

"Meade said..."The question is, if one group takes over the building and bullies other groups (such as, you know, shouting them down when they [try] to speak and physically hits them when they are there), isn't that group abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble, consult for the common good and to petition the government?"

Matthew Sablan asks the exact right question. Can garage mahal or any other supporter of the "Uprising" Capitol occupation protest answer that question? John Nichols? Jesse Jackson?

Tammy Baldwin?"

I don't think it's a proper question at all. The question at hand is what limitations government can impose on "peaceable assembly"...not what impact the lack of one has on another. The issue is were the protests "peaceable. The answer is "no".

So here's the thing about the 1st Amendment, garage. The government has no right with interfering with the people's right to peaceably assemble and protest the government. So if I rent out (or happen to own) a field, get a bunch of people there and hold a rally, as long as I keep it peaceable the government has no say in the matter.

The property owner does, though. He or she can choose not to rent out the field to whoever they please for whatever reason they want. Where it gets complicated is when the government IS the property owner.

Government property belongs to everyone. My right to walk my dog in a public park is just as protected as your right to protest there. And I have no more right to let my dog relieve himself in the park than you do to leave crap and trash all over. So, how do we resolve this?

Permits. If you want to run an event with a whole lot of people that will interfere with my ability to walk my dog in the park then you have to get a permit. And give surety against property damage, etc.

But that has to apply to everyone. The GOP and the Democrats. The Tea Party and Occupy. Both have to post bond, or neither one does. Both have to clean up after themselves. Neither one can camp (parks sustained $100,000's of damage from Occupy campers). Where law enforcement is applied unevenly on this then you have official discrimination, as odious on the basis of politics as it is on the basis of race.

There is no 1st Amendment right to protest as a group on public property without regard to other people's rights to use that property for other purposes. There is no 1st Amendment right to protest as a group on public property without regard to regulations set up to prevent abuse of and damage to that property. But time and time again we see that right-wing oriented groups (a.k.a. the Tea Party Movement) understand and respect this where left-wing oriented groups (SEIU, Occupy) don't.

It leads one to believe that the left-wing groups don't truly understand or respect the 1st Amendment in particular or the Constitution and it's role in American society overall. It's just something to be used when convenient but ignored when necessary to achieve their ends.

Right to assemble and petition. SECTION 4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.

which is entirely in accordance with what I have said. If you want to peaceably assemble, great. If you want to use force to break into public buildings and violate ordinances and regulations so as to interfere with other people's use of that same public building or space then you are not being peaceable.

I don't think it's a proper question at all. The question at hand is what limitations government can impose on "peaceable assembly"...not what impact the lack of one has on another. The issue is were the protests "peaceable. The answer is "no".

Point well-taken, Curious George. The alleged actions of bullying, intimidation, and assaults by Nichols, Jackson, Baldwin, and others, might violate a criminal or tort law but they are not constitutional violations.

He could start out by affirming the following 12 qualities necessary for police in our society to hold and practice at: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/policing-our-nation.html. Also visit my blog on police improvement at http://improvingpolice.wordpress.com. (Those qualities are: Accountable, Collaborative, Educated and trained, Effective and preventive, Honest, Model citizen, Peacekeeper and protector, Representative, Respectful, Restrained, Servant leader, and Unbiased.) There also is my new book that may be helpful and save him a lot of trouble: “Arrested Development: A Veteran Police Chief Sounds Off About Protest, Racism, Corruption and the Seven Steps Necessary to Improve Our Nation’s Police” (Amazon.com).

Didn't the protesters more than once lock the Capitol's fire exits? If so, they were taking a chance - a small chance, fortunately not fulfilled - that they would end up as guilty, and as hated, as the managers of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory.

Actually, they were already guilty of endangering people's lives, just as a drunk driver is (morally) guilty of something like attempted homicide, even if he's lucky enough not to hit anyone that particular night.

Meade said...I don't think it's a proper question at all. The question at hand is what limitations government can impose on "peaceable assembly"...not what impact the lack of one has on another. The issue is were the protests "peaceable. The answer is "no".

Point well-taken, Curious George. The alleged actions of bullying, intimidation, and assaults by Nichols, Jackson, Baldwin, and others, might violate a criminal or tort law but they are not constitutional violations.

How about when their behavior denies my equal access. How does their right to assemble trump my rights?

Rusty said..."How about when their behavior denies my equal access. How does their right to assemble trump my rights?"

It doesn't. But if that's the case, then you might have a criminal complaint or a tort claim against them - not a constitutional right against the government. I think that is what Curious George was, correctly, pointing out.

ACLU communications director Stacy Harbaugh pointed out that signing the permits for visual displays and protests also waived the person or group’s rights to sue police officers for any acts during the event. The state’s decisions regarding how much of a police presence any given event would require—and how much it would cost protesters, who would be responsible under the new rules—were too vague and arbitrary, she said.

In other words, if you want a permit then you have to agree that the police can do anything-at-all (even if it ain't legal) without a threat of repercussions and they can charge you as much as they want to for the "privilege" of protesting.

I don't remember the Sons of Liberty getting a permit before they dumped tea into Boston Harbor...but then again, maybe that is a bad example for this crowd.

After all, many commentators (including our own hostess) has made it pretty clear that due to those type of distasteful actions they would most likely have been Tories during the America Revolution.

Can't say I "remember" why the Sons of Liberty were all aghast, 'cause I wasn't actually there at the time. :D

But I've studied a couple different points of view on the issue...some folks say there actions were just the result of a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males not wanting to pay their taxes while others say they were brave men who wanted to make a better society for their families and generations to come.

The Sons of Liberty truly are a very interesting part of our American history and culture, and it is a shame that more people aren't aware of 'em.

Tho, I ain't sure what that has to do with the fact that in order to be considered a legal gathering in our State Capitol a group must first agree that one can't sue the police for anything the officers might do that day, but also they can charge you as much (or as little) as they want to, based only on their whims.

When I was a kid during the end of the Cold War they told us that was the kind of stuff the Russians do...it is shame that so many in America now embraces those type of overreaching rules.